Revenue, opex and capex are modelled in great unique and is damaged down into line items, and almost on each item, even case study answer smallest one, you want to take a view backed up by thorough due diligence, research or legislations. Simple “let’s grow this line at 5% every year” is not appropriate. Even if income is based on case study answer govt determined tariff sounds simple, eh?, case study answer legit formula for tariff calculation is commonly ridiculously confusing, is dependent upon opex, capex, macro assumptions and takes hundreds or or thousands of rows in Excel to calculate. Sometimes I think that going that complicated increases case study answer probability of a mechanical error in Excel and likewise chance of creating a wrong assumption as well. Unfortunately simplistic approach about growing anything at random 5% can occasionally be more accurate than super duper precise bottom up modelling with wrong assumptions notorious GIGO effect. With that being said, case study solution above information about modelling and investment system is only true for fund managers and some of case study solution top pension plans.